How come when they arrive at the Zone, the film all of a sudden turns from black/white to normal colored?

How come when they arrive at the Zone, the film all of a sudden turns from black/white to normal colored?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/TGRDYpCmMcM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The color only just kicked in at that point

Sounds like something wrong with your monitor bro

Because it's OK to use on-the-nose symbolism as long as you're "an enemy of symbols."

The film mixes sepia and color footage; within the Zone, in the countryside, all is colorful, while the outside, urban world is tinted sepia.

It's a literal pleb filter, Tarkovsky said multiple times it's made intentionally so every pleb can leave at the start so the rest can experience it properly.

Whatever you think it means is what it means.
It's mostly to create contrast and a different kind of feel between the settings. There is no universal "answer" to it

Is that really true

I always considered it like a transition from their bleak normal lives to the zone where they can find what they're looking for

Is that true for pic related as well?

No It doesn't, the whole movie is in color

I think you have a bad copy

I figured it was symbolism for the Stalker feeling at home in the Zone. It was the only thing that gave him purpose.

Yeah Tarkovsky was mostly joking, it's just an atmospheric device like any other.

There is practically no direct symbolism in Tarkovsky films, he hated symbols.

We've been through this already.

Yeah. It's totally not to be taken as a transition from a mundane to a magical place. Totally.

That's not symbolism my dear friend.

If a film has a dream sequence and has a different color grade over it, you wouldn't say that color grade is a "symbol" for dreams would you?

If Tarkovsky has no direct symbolism, then what's wrong with me applying my own interpretation?

So with a image tarkovsky tries to represent a general feeling instead of a concrete meaning?

Absolutely nothing, it's what you should do.
Tarkovsky wanted for his films to be personal experiences for everybody, which ofcourse implies different interpretations.

I'm just saying there is no universal singular answer or meaning to every shot, just the general themes and ideas.

Something like that, yes

To clear things up for you, here's a quote about symbolism from Tarkovsky himself:
>"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. People always try to find "hidden" meanings in my films. But wouldn't it be strange to make a film while striving to hide one's thoughts? An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite"

No, but if someone moved from a drab, mundane world into a more vibrant, magical one, I'd say it was symbolic of magic.

>Looking for 'meaning' in things like a pleb
>Being unable to experience them on a purely aesthetic level

>claims to hate symbolism
>loves Bresson, who uses religious symbolism regularly

what did tarkovsky mean by this

It's a Soviet movie.
They couldn't afford to buy color film for the whole of it.

Blame communists.

>watching Tarkovsky just for the pretty pictures

All of his films are about spirituality and exploring the spirituality of one self, you project your opinion onto the experience,

why even watch films if you only want to watch balanced pictures.

xD Damn communists! Gah! Teh Evil Penguins are back!

Go back to /r/film

die in a fire communist scum

>complaining about colored people

It's probably to emphasise that the zone is weirdly beautiful.

Because the Zone is the real world

>transition from sepia to color is a pleb filter

Yeah there's really obcure art film called the wizard of oz, most people can't get through it

You can't not have symbols in a film, it's not something you consciously choose to take out

>what are semiotics?

So was he retarded or a hypocrite?

>ctrl-f "wizard of oz"
>2 results
/thread

t. brainler

Bresson just makes religious films
neither

>an enemy of symbols
but that's how humans communicate, wtf

>a cinematic expression that immediately communicates an aesthetic meaning to the viewer
>symbolism
what did he mean by this

I like Tarkovsky's films but fucking hell his criticism is worthless

>THIS FILM WAS NOT DONE EXACTLY THE WAY I WOULD DO IT IT IS WRONG I AM ALWAYS RIGHT AM THE ONLY PERSON ALIVE WHO IS NOT A HACK

>muh dads poems

>Stalker and Alien released in the same year

Why did Stalker look like shit? Is it because it was shot on 35mm? Or did Russians not have access to the technology?

>Although strongly opposed to commercial cinema, in a famous exception Tarkovsky praised the blockbuster film The Terminator, saying its "vision of the future and the relation between man and its destiny is pushing the frontier of cinema as an art". He was critical of the "brutality and low acting skills", but nevertheless impressed by this film.

Truly /ourguy/

>Is it because it was shot on 35mm?

Don't use terms you don't understand kid

What?

>stalker
>looking like shit

You just watched a bad print.

Here's Stalker in it's full glory
youtu.be/TGRDYpCmMcM

What the actual fuck.

How does this look so good yet the 35mm version I watched in a theater looks so bad?

Is this like a restored blueray version or something?

>That's not symbolism my dear friend.
>being this wrong

Ayyyy....

This is the version I've downloaded. Doesn't look anywhere as good as the one on YouTube, and it looks the exact same as the one I saw in the theater.

yeah

was just restored by Mosfilm last year

went on youtube and filmstruck last fall

announced YESTERDAY for Criterion Blu-Ray release in July

GET FUCKING HYPE

I saw in in 35mm a few years ago too and it did look like shit, barely better than the dvd transfers that are out right now. very happy about the remaster

Boring film. If it wasn't made by a famous director, no one would give a shit.

how did he get famous tho?

Look at Soljaris.
At the beginning some parts are in black and white and it makes sense. But during the 2nd act you'll get random scenes in b&w and there really is no reason for them to be in b&w.
That's because they ran out of color film stock and had to film on cheap b&w film. The Soviet Union couldn't supply it's best director with color film stock.

>a cinematic expression that immediately and directly communicates an aesthetic meaning to the viewer
>"symbolism"

sure thing buddy

I read it as the audience seeing the zone through the Stalker's own POV; the regular world is black and white, the Zone is comparably vibrant with color, with the only thing outside of it with color being his daughter.
This latter portion could mean two things, either it's the one thing the Stalker really cares for outside of his passion, or it could reflect how she's a product of the Zone.

>Tarkovsky dismissed color film as a "commercial gimmick" and cast doubt on the idea that contemporary films meaningfully use color. He claimed that in everyday life one does not consciously notice colors most of the time, and that color should therefore be used in film mainly to emphasize certain moments, but not all the time, as this distracts the viewer.

I-I WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE FROM A COMMUNIST STATE

Tarkovsky's doing his best, don't bully him.

Or how about both?

It's pretty obvious how much Stalker cares about the Zone and how important it is to him, but his daughter is also clearly supernatural/a product of the Zone.

wtf i hate color now

Fair. Terrible wording on my part.

>soviets literally saw in black and white

kek

COLOR VISION IS A DECADENT VICE OF THE WEST

remember that time brakhage got completely btfo by tarkovsky?

The Game was fucking awesome. Probably my favourite FPS of all time

fuck off???

I love this so much

I'm honored you thought my earlier post was so well said that you copied it almost word for word. Keep fighting the good fight user.

well, for the first 2/3 of his career he did literally pretend to be a communist before defecting

>human eye cant see colors all the time

To an extent. He doesn't wish to communicate in any visual sense.

>film is a visual medium
>I don't want to communicate in a visual sense

He should have fucked off and been a musician then

It's actually all in monochrome, the color film is the result of filming the zone sections in the remains of a toxic chemical plant

kek

Stop posting this.
This is the second thread I see posted with no rhyme or reason.

>there will never be an adaptation of solaris that portrays the absolute alienation of the individual and existential nightmare of being the dream of a blind crazy god
Lem is seriously underrated.

He's literally one of the few directors Sup Forums bends over for

Thats not even kind of true user. Its alienates the pleb audience so theyre not huge threads hitting bump limit, but hes still constantly brought up.

I think people miss out on the film discussion threads because they tend to get buried under the baneposting, waifu threads, capeshit and starwars.

he said notice, not see

>film is a visual medium meme
There are levels of communication through visuals. He disliked symbolism that had a definite and singular meaning. I'll try to find another quote but this is basically his point:

>Film mise en scene, as we know, means the disposition and movement of selected objects in relation to the area of the frame. What purpose does it serve? Nine times out of ten you'll be told that it serves to express the meaning of what is happening; and that is all. But to set that as the limit of mise on scene is to start along a path that leads only one way: towards abstraction. In the final scene of 'Give Anna Giacceia a Husband' de Santis puts his hero and heroine on either side of a metal gate. The gate clearly states: now the couple are split up, they'll never be happy, contact is impossible. And so a specific, individual, unique event is turned into something utterly banal because it has been forced to take on a trivial form. The spectator immediately knocks his head against the 'ceiling' of the director's so-called thought. The trouble is that lots of audiences enjoy such knocks, they make them feel safe: not only is it 'exciting' but the idea is clear and there's no need to strain the brain or the eye, there's no need to see anything specific in what is happening. And on that sort of diet the audience starts to degenerate. Yet similar gates, fences, hedges, have been repeated many a time in many a film and always mean the same thing.

Why was he such a grumpy gus?

>I want to make the point yet again that in film, every time, the first essential in any plastic composition, its necessary and final criterion, is whether it is true to life, specific an factual; that is what makes it unique. By contrast, symbols are born, and readily pass into general use to become cliches, when an author hits upon a particular plastic composition, ties it in with some mysterious turn of thought of his own, loads it with extraneous meaning.

Jesus Christ you fucking IDIOTS it's even written in wikipedia you morons

i was actually so glad people didnt speak about this movie much so moments like op didnt get spoiled for me

We know the film is in sepia and colour, the question is why you IDIOT

those colours make me sad desu
Why all this colour grading reee

Listening to Tarkovsky bitch and moan about everything makes me realize why commies loved killing intellectuals

>It's a literal pleb filter,
you know what that's actually make sense

>The Wizard of Oz

He's a big Bresson fan, so his sort of approach is to be expected.

>dies from his own creation
only ascended director

baneposting and waifu threads have never buried fil discussion. meme threads have always been meme threads and don't really influence the discussion of film on this board

however, the constant spam of popular bullshit like marvel, star wars, walking dead, got, fast and furious, dcuck bullshit, etc DOES bury actual film discussion because the kind of people flooding into this board watch that kind of shit and only that kind of shit

old Sup Forums was a bunch of people who liked movies that joked around a lot. Now it's a bunch of you-know-who's that don't like movies who believed that they owned the place the moment they got here

all the things you listed are relevant to the board it's the Sup Forums shit, BLACKED and celeb gossip that's the worst part

>however, one scene depicts the real death of a horse. The horse falls from a flight of stairs and is then stabbed by a spear. To produce this image, Tarkovsky injured the horse by shooting it in the neck and then pushed it from the stairs, causing the animal to falter and fall down the flight of stairs. From there, the camera pans off the horse onto some soldiers to the left and then pans back right onto the horse, and we see the horse struggling to get its footing having fallen over on its back before being stabbed by the spear. The animal was then shot in the head afterward off camera

What is it with directors and killing animals?

The idea of 'the zone' section being in colour is supposed to denote feelings of being one with nature and spiritual freedom within oneself. The stalker longs to go back there because he lives in a world where nature and the earth are forgotten and where men rule. The zone is just a part of the world untouched by man and doesnt have any mysteries other than the great mystery of nature iteslf and no secret aliums, as seen by the ending. The stalker's dreams/visions in the zone arent in colour so it is not a property of the zone but a property of how the stalker views the world. Note that the last few shots of the film with monkey are also in colour possibly because she growing up in the post-apocolyptic world and knows no different to the shithole she lives in. She is happy with her father and mother and lives in a world devoid of spirituality or natural beauty. She is the generation living after tarkovsky. The ending is ambiguous because of the glass. She may still have the deep spiritual beliefs her father did without having to connect them to the zone or might be devoid of them.

I find that stalker is a response to existentialism growing in common society and a kind of 'proof' that the great mysteries of life and nature are there if you dont sit there trying to study them and expect the universe to provide you with them at will.

More like Tarkovzzzzzzzzzzzzz lmao

tarkovzed?

>films to be personal experiences for everybody
Reminder this line literally just means "oh mistakes or things I forgot to put in or do? It was, you know, art n shit"

Art that "exists within the viewer's mind" is just shitty art.
An optical illusion which will reliably cause the viewer to see a given image or any one or more of two or several equally presented images is art.

Paint-diarrhea on a canvas that you can see ANYTHING in, and it's not just about shapes, it's about HOW DOSE DID MAEK U FEEL, is not art, nor it is philosophy, it's just retards fellating retards.

Clearly we have some of that degenerative audience here with us right now.

I don't really see the difference between your supposed "retards fellating retards" and you stroking your own dick to catching a director's so-called "cryptic" symbology.But hey, if it makes you feel intelligent, so be it.

>I really don't understand, thus you must be retarded degenerate
No, you are the retarded degenerate for going along with the "art is implied" meme.